People's Democracy

RESOLUTION ON THE ASI

Indian archaeologists justifiably recall with pride the splendid past achievements of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). Its discoveries of forgotten cultures and collection and decipherment of large numbers of inscriptions constitute an enormous contribution to the progress of our knowledge and understanding of our past. It is a matter of grave disquiet, therefore, that the ASI’s work in recent years has often been so undistinguished, and some of it like the destruction wrought in the Red Fort at Delhi in the name of preservation and restoration, has been so incredibly unprofessional. This Congress expressed its sense of grave concern on such cases more than once. One cannot but express alarm at the fact that for well over a decade the ASI has not been headed by an archaeologist, but has had only temporary civil service officials assigned to it as Directors General. The ASI has thus been deprived at the very top, of any element of expert supervision, scientific vision or long-term planning, all of which are necessary if the ASI has to come out of its current stupor. This Congress, therefore, proposes that the following steps be immediately taken:-

1. The appointment of an archaeologist of high repute as Director-General of the ASI. Should any legal  or technical bars stand in the way, these should be cleared by Parliamentary legislation.

2. Scientific rigour and accountability must be strengthened in the work of excavation and preservation. For instance, all reports should give a clear concordance of numbered levels in various trenches giving the period assigned to each level and listing the artefacts obtained therefrom. If a particular director in an official ASI excavation is not able to prepare his report in the prescribed period of time, the work should be assigned to another expert. All notes, including detailed daily work-reports, should be preserved, along with photographs, and these should be made available to bonafide researchers after the expiry of a certain period. Detailed rules should be framed in this regard and strictly implemented.

3. All steps for the so-called “restoration” of monuments should be avoided. When any alteration or addition becomes necessary for reasons of structural protection, the plans of restoration should be published and time be given for independent expert advice.

4. The Excavation and Preservation branches of the ASI should be separated so that both branches are able to concentrate on their separate concerns. This will also help to protect Protected Monuments from unnecessary excavation.

5. The Epigraphy Branch of the ASI should be fully staffed and strong effort be made to publish or calendar all hitherto unpublished but significant inscriptions.

6. An atlas cell with full facilities should be re-established in the ASI.

7. All periodical publications should be punctually published. A new serious academic journal, as successor to Ancient India (ASI’s journal, now defunct), should be regularly brought out.

8. The scales of pay in the ASI should be made more attractive to draw persons with expertise and talent into the ASI.